• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Just saw "The Da Vinci Code"

UNCjigga

UNCjigga

Lifer
Overall I'd say it was a decent book-to-movie adaptation by most standards. The pacing was a little off (the movie started off very fast compared to the book, then slowed down after Robert got to France, then sped up again after Robert and Sophie left in Teabing's plane.) Lots of small fun details were left out, but that is to be expected (and some details were left out for the PG-13 rating, such as what really went on in Sauniere's rituals and who Sophie's "grandmother" was.)

The only real problem I saw with the movie was Hank's acting--you get a feeling that he was underutilized for this role, but perhaps that's just his character's quiet, intellectual personality. But I'd say Paul Bettany, Audrey Tatou (simply stunning--Monica Belluci fans will love her!) and Ian McKellen were the real scene stealers. Nothing Oscar worthy (except "maybe" Bettany for a supporting actor role) but good solid acting from the supporting cast, which made Hanks' perceived lack of depth stand out more.

edit: oh, and one more problem with the movie--it was one giant Sony commercial (yay for Sony execs exploiting "synergies" from the merger with MGM!) Seriously, the only Sony gadget you didn't see was PS3, and I'm sure if I watched more closely I'd have seen one.

We saw an earlier show to avoid long lines and ensure we could all sit together (me and my friends from school took up an entire row) and as we were leaving we saw protesters from a local church. The funny thing is, I'm not sure the protesters were even Catholic--I think some of them were from a nearby Baptist church. It bothers me that people would take time out of the day to protest a movie when there are so many more productive things they can be doing to profess/protect their faith, but whatever.

As for the previews--we did see a new trailer for Shyamalan's "Lady in the Water" that made the movie seem a bit more interesting, but that's not what piqued my interest. The last preview they showed was a short teaser trailer for "Casino Royale" ("Da Vinci" being a Sony/MGM release after all) and I must say you definately got the sense that they're going in a new direction with Bond films. My initial reaction to the teaser is that this new Bond will be less charm, wit and subdued humor and more dark, cunning, and ruthless. Can't wait to see how it turns out! I just hope "Casino Royale" isn't another Sony ad--but I have a feeling "Q" will be showing a preference for a certain brand of Japanese gadgets.
 
Hanks = bad choice for the role
Reno = didn't do what he can do in his role
Tatou = excellent for her role I think

Overall not too great, wasn't very thrilling, didn't have any power to "hold" the audience IMO. Shock scenes were a bit random, Silas' parts often came off looking quite awkward and didn't manage to integrate with the story as a whole, unlike in the book.
 
Originally posted by: Minjin
Should the book be read before or after seeing the movie?

Mark
Click to expand...
I don't think it matters when you read the book--for those who've read it, the movie is a good way to help visualize some of the symbols and explore all the historical landmarks. For those who haven't read the book--reading it after seeing the movie will help fill-in a lot of little details and reveal much more at the ending.

 
are you serious? tom hanks demos the ps3 in the movie?


awesome!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111oneoneoneone
 
i also found the pacing to be way off. it felt like they origionally shot it for 4 hours but then had to chop it down. i was expecting more of out of Hanks. Paul Bettany definetly gave the best performance and he was the one i wasn't supose to dislike. Jean Reno's role was an absolute waste for him.
 
I saw it. I was mad at Sony for refusing to allow midnight showings. I was also mad at Sony when they cut out the scene with the huge electronic archival library but instead indexed the whole thing on a SONY ERICCSON mobile phone. Subtle.
 
Originally posted by: UNCjigga
Originally posted by: Minjin
Should the book be read before or after seeing the movie?

Mark
Click to expand...
I don't think it matters when you read the book--for those who've read it, the movie is a good way to help visualize some of the symbols and explore all the historical landmarks. For those who haven't read the book--reading it after seeing the movie will help fill-in a lot of little details and reveal much more at the ending.
Click to expand...

Well, I've found that for some movies, it ruins the movie when I've read the book first. But for some, ex. Lord of the Rings, it makes no difference.

Mark
 
Originally posted by: FoBoT
are you serious? tom hanks demos the ps3 in the movie?


awesome!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111oneoneoneone
Click to expand...
LOL, if you read what I wrote, you'll see I DID NOT see a PS3, but I'm sure it was sitting hidden in the background somewhere. It wasn't very blatant Sony advertising, but you did see a lot of Sony gadgets and there were a few scenes focusing on Sony Ericsson phones.

But I wonder what would be better: Tom Hanks demoing PS3 vs. Robin Williams demoing "Spore"!!

 
Oh yeah, one more thing about the Bond trailer--Bond will definately be driving a classic Aston Martin at least once!
 
SPOILERS: I agree with the pacing issues. Maybe if I saw the movie without having read the book, I would have not noticed. But having read the book and knowing that the beginning Louvre scenes were definitely some of the most exciting scenes in the book, I felt that the beginning scenes in the movie were way too rushed. I mean, one of the most indelible mental images from the book was Langdon using "Madonna on the Rocks" to shield himself and Sophie to escape from the guard in the Louvre. That scene was left out of the movie. Also, it felt like they solved the puzzles way too fast in the movie. At least in the book you could see the thought processes and try to "play along" with the characters. The only real electric scenes in the movie were the scene were Landgon and Teabing were explaining the Holy Grail to Sophie and the last scene (for those of you who read the book, you know what I mean). The entire movie felt rushed sometimes, slow at others, and sometimes confusing as well (if you haven't read the book, you might get lost in the plot). When I was reading the book, I remember thinking that this would be hard to make into a movie, and it seems that my fears were correct.
 
Agree, I thought it was appropriately paced given the time constraints. Critics are already coming down on it for being too "talky" - if they left everything in, it would have been called a snoozer. Fundamentally there was just too many cool epiphanies in the book for them to have fit in a 2.5 hour movie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top